The Most Insightful Articles ABout Trading and Investing!

you show an interesting relationship to psychology and trading ... and elephants and leaves.

Talking about the relationship between them seperatly can also bring up some interesting conversation. I saw a thread that had a link to rain man. Also i note that people who know things tend to be very good at the English language. so much so that i may misunderstanding. Your post can mean many things to many people. there are other characteristics that i see. like a great knowledge of certain things. I often see quotes from great sciences that i wonder where they cam from. do people make them up? do they actually research them ? do they memorize them? these tendencies all have a familiar flavor.

unfortunately language is not a hot spot for me. differentiating between what is literal or symbolic is not a strong trait. there fore everything in this thread will be deemed symbolic.

as for elephants i really like them they mourn over their dead, they show many emotions.,a fear of mice and alot of things about them are interesting. I find there ears and noses to be spectacular.
Darwinian at its best. like the giraffes neck.

what is surprising to me is that though they have a long nose it is also flexible and acts like a hand moving left to right within tusks. This shows how evolution effects animals differently the giraffe grows a long neck to make up for not having hands where the elephant develops a long nose for the same reason.

leafs are also interesting they are essentially a efficient solar panel taking energy from the sun and water through stems the energy from the sun is used to process water brought up by capillary action... i think we should open an new thread about gravity and capillary action here.. if there is interest pm me i really like that it is the only action that defies gravity.

as for me having a moustach, im afraid i have no idea what you are referring to. either i am too new here or i am not well read enough (on a topic) to understand. if it is the later i apologize.

also to some degree i apologize for the in coherency of my post.

but probably the in coherency is a good thing.

im really curious about the moustach remark because i do have a gotea. it is well groomed and right under my nose, perpendicular to it. as most are.

Maybe the moustach remark is in regards to you believing ii am some one else which is a battle i cant win.
some times when i shave i have no start point. Most people have a start point. I have even begun start to shave where there is no hair! but most of the time i have a good sense of direction like the norm. i tend to use soap instead of shaving cream i find it is much more efficiant. any further remarks about my shaving, moustaches or goteas are welcome. I enjoy sharing my shaving style with men only as for remarks on elephants noses ears or plant life it is something i must stay away form as i can talk on and on about them.

Nebuchadnezzar i think this is the first post of yours that i liked why the change of hart ? or am i mistaking you form some one else as i often do?

what was meant by me having a moustach? does it have any thing to do with elephants? are you all on here everyday?


Quote from Nebuchadnezzar:

The fact that you are operating with concepts of FF and TF without awareness of what the opposites are, represents an epistemological booby trap of elephantine proportions at the foundation of hershey/spydertrader crackpot paradigm.

How do people know—and justify—that they have erred? Error seems the very antithesis of knowledge. How could one justify such a "negative" discovery

Error and "negative" knowledge are closely allied. Negative knowledge comprises false claims, whose falseness has been justified. It contrasts with positive knowledge, whose claims are also justified, but considered true. Error is a false claim interpreted as true and justified. (One can equally imagine the symmetrical case, a true claim interpreted as false.) That is, error occurs when ultimately negative knowledge passes as positive knowledge in some evidential context. In other words, error is an artifact interpreted as a signal, or fact. How does one differentiate fact from error, since both seem justified, while only one is true?

What is an elephant’s trunk? What is it phylogenetically? What did genetics tell it to be?

As you know, the answer is that the elephant’s trunk is his "nose." (Even Kipling knew!) And I put the word "nose" in quotation marks because the trunk is being defined by an internal process of communication in growth. The trunk is a "nose" by a process of communication: it is the context of the trunk that identifies it as a nose. That which stands between two eyes and north of a mouth is a "nose," and that is that.

It is the context that fixes the meaning, and it must surely be the receiving context that provides meaning for the genetic instructions. When I call that a "nose" and this a "hand" I am quoting – or misquoting – the developmental instructions in the growing organism, and quoting what the tissues which received the message thought the message intended.

There are people who would prefer to define noses by their "function" – that of smelling. But if you spell out those definitions, you arrive at the same place using a temporal instead of a spatial context. You attach meaning to the organ by seeing it as playing a given part in sequences of interaction between creature and environment. I call that a temporal context. The temporal classification cross-cuts the spatial classification of contexts. But in embryology, the first definition must always be in terms of formal relations. The fetal trunk cannot, in general, smell anything. Embryology is formal.

Let me illustrate this species of connection, this connecting pattern, a little further by citing a discovery of Goethe’s. He was a considerable botanist who had great ability in recognizing the nontrivial. He straightened out the vocabulary of the gross comparative anatomy of flowering plants. He discovered that a "leaf" is not satisfactorily defined as "a flat green thing" or a "stem" as "a cylindrical thing." The way to go about the definition – and undoubtedly somewhere deep in the growth processes of the plant, this is how the matter is handled – is to note that buds (i.e., baby stems) form in the angles of leaves. From that, the botanist constructs the definitions on the basis of the relations between stem, leaf, bud, angle, and so on.

"A stem is that which bears leaves."
"A leaf is that which has a bud in its angle."
"A stem is what was once a bud in that position,"

There is a parallel confusion in the teaching of language that has never been straightened out. Professional linguists nowadays may know what’s what, but children in school are still taught nonsense. They are told that a "noun" is the "name of a person, place, or thing," that a "verb" is "an action word," and so on. That is, they are taught at a tender age that the way to define something is by what it supposedly is in itself, not by its relation to other things.

Most of us can remember being told that a noun is "the name of a person, place, or thing." And we can remember the utter boredom of parsing or analyzing sentences. Today all that should be changed. Children could be told that a noun is a word having a certain relationship to a predicate. A verb has a certain relation to a noun, its subject. And so on. Relationship could be used as basis for definition, and any child could then see that there is something wrong with the sentence "Go’ is a verb."
More...
 
Quote from frenchfry:

Here I show where I would have had difficulties applying the rules. Oooops... there are no rules and I'm not supposed to follow them. ;-)
More...

Faster Fractal. This utterance suggests that you are using transitive inference, which is a form of relational reasoning in which objects are ordered on a single dimension. The market simply doesn't operate that way.
 
Quote from frenchfry:

:D

According to some instructions/rules I think you are right it would be the first VE of the trading fractal. I also might have broken some rules of clean sheet 4 in the first fractals which I drew and therefore the trading fractal is drawn wrong.
More...

Bar 17 (1700) on your chart is a VE and it DID NOT close in the zone descibed in hershey's rule 8 ("8. On VE’s the FTT will show up after M1 and M2 sub-fractals when VE closes in the zone between the old and new LTL. Otherwise, if the close is NOT in the described zone, reverse on the VE close and use the VE as the new point 1 (See step 1 above) of next parallelogram.")

What would happen if you reversed short on the close of Bar 17 (1700)? According to hershey it should have been used as point 1 for short trend.

Can you see now that he is full of crap? Do you still believe that he or spydertrader have ever traded the crap they have been spreading for years?
 
Quote from Nebuchadnezzar:

Bar 17 (1700) on your chart - isn't it a VE as well?

BTW your chart lacks complete and thorough annotations - you must have missed a critical component of monitoring.
More...

If bar 17 is the first VE then we have to apply "rule" 8:

"...8. On VE’s the FTT will show up after M1 and M2 sub-fractals when VE closes in the zone between the old and new LTL. Otherwise, if the close is NOT in the described zone, reverse on the VE close and use the VE as the new point 1 (See step 1 above) of next parallelogram. ..."

Meaning bar 17 is a new pt1, we go short at the close of that bar, place a green bookmark on the top of bar 17. Bar 19 ends the two bar container but we don't exit until that bar crosses the green line. The result is a loss. Because we followed rule 8 we had a pt1 and what must come next tells that the low of bar 18 was probably point 2 WMCN is a point 3 that's why we would hold through bar 19. Damn... there must be a flaw in those rules.
 
Quote from Nebuchadnezzar:

Bar 17 (1700) on your chart is a VE and it DID NOT close in the zone descibed in hershey's rule 8 ("8. On VE’s the FTT will show up after M1 and M2 sub-fractals when VE closes in the zone between the old and new LTL. Otherwise, if the close is NOT in the described zone, reverse on the VE close and use the VE as the new point 1 (See step 1 above) of next parallelogram.")

What would happen if you reversed short on the close of Bar 17 (1700)? According to hershey it should have been used as point 1 for short trend.

Can you see now that he is full of crap? Do you still believe that he or spydertrader have ever traded the crap they have been spreading for years?
More...
What if?
 

Attachments

Quote from baro-san:

What if?
More...

There shouldn't be a "what if". This is supposed to be binary. In addition so far the focus was only on the price. All doubts should disappear after annotating volume, correct?
 
Quote from frenchfry:

-------------------------------------------------------------
... there must be a flaw in those rules.
More...

Quote from baro-san:

What if?
More...

Quote from traitor786:

stupid question, whats a green bookmark and whats WMCN again i don't know the lingo but this has popped up a few times and im curious
More...

Quote from SnakeEYE:

bar 13 - first BO,then 1-2-3.don`t know how to connect volume to those,though.
More...

That pretty much sums up the 5 years of hershey/spydertrader's journals.

Now hershey is gonna post one pager addressing a random subject completely ignoring the fact that rule 8 doesn't work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top